Re: Slink to potato upgrade
>>>>> On Mon, 22 Mar 1999 17:10:27 -0500, "Mike Goldman" <whig@by.net> said:
Mike> ----- Original Message -----
Mike> From: Joel Klecker <jk@espy.org> To:
Mike> <debian-devel@lists.debian.org> Sent: Monday, March 22, 1999
Mike> 6:39 AM Subject: Re: Slink to potato upgrade
>> >I respect you greatly for packaging what is certainly one of the
>> >most important, and most troublesome, packages in Debian.
>> >However, I'd like
Mike> to
>> >know what to do about:
>> >
>> >libglib elm
>>
>> No one has figured out *why* elm breaks (and if it is even glibc's
>> fault). No one even bothered to tell me glib broke or in what
>> manner it broke.
Mike> FWIW, glibc2.1 broke libgc4 for awhile, due to a dependency on
Mike> internal symbols. While this was certainly libgc4's "fault,"
Mike> and is already fixed in the current libgc4 which has since been
Mike> uploaded, what about a binary-only package which has a similar
Mike> problem?
Mike> I realize that Debian is primarily about free software, but
Mike> Debian users sometimes do want to use third party software
Mike> which is not part of Debian at all, alien RPMs and so forth.
Mike> Will we take the position that if such software breaks on
Mike> Debian, it's not our problem, in other words, that we don't
Mike> care to ensure binary-compatibility with RedHat, Caldera or any
Mike> other Linux?
I'll put in my vote. Yes it's OK to allow packages to break. No I'm
not too concerned with breaking RPMs. And the binary compatibility
problems will go away when the other distributions convert.
Mike> In sum, I'm in favor of changing the soname, and encouraging
Mike> other distros to do the same with glibc2.1.
This is a horrible idea considering that the problems are either 1)
the software was written badly to begin with 2) it's a simple
recompile. Why add such complexity when a majority of packages will
not have a single problem?
Dres
--
@James LewisMoss <dres@ioa.com> | Blessed Be!
@ http://www.ioa.com/~dres | Linux is kewl!
@"Argue for your limitations and sure enough, they're yours." Bach
Reply to: